The Sun. — London, England, 1838-08-15 00:00:00

IMPERIAL PARLIAMENT. HOUSE OF COMMONS. AUGUST 14. The SPEAKER took his seat at the table shortly before four o'clock, when the House was summoned to the House of Lords to hear the Royal Assent given to various Bills (for which see Lords' Report). Mr. PARKER appeared at the bar, with a return from the Poor-law Commissioners. The Marquis of DOURO presented a petition from Nor wich for the repeal of fire insurance duty, and for a reduction of the Post-office duties. Captain GORDON presented a petition from the clergy of Weymouth in favour of the Established Church in Upper Canada. . . --- Lord STANLEY presented a petition against idolatry in India. Mr. LEADER presented a petition from certain parties connected with railroads in Ireland complaining of injustice, which they alleged had been done to them by the Railway Commission. Mr. HAVES presented a petition from a Dissenting Mi nister, and other persons at Walcot, complaining that one of the paupers in the workhouse had been kept from partaking of the Lord's Supper. A request lied been made to the Guar dians on the subject, and they stated that she should go and return in a manner satisfactory to them. Mader these cir cumstances they hoped that some additional liberty would be given to Dissenters to attend their respective places of worship. _ _ _ On the motion of Lord JOHN RUSSELL, the Lords' amendments to the Ecclesiastical Appointments Suspension Bill were agreed to. POSTAGE. Mr. WALLACE gave notice, that in accordance with the recommendation of the Committee on Postage, he should, in the next Session, move for leave to bring in a Bill to the following effect:—That the postage on all letters on stamped paper, not exceeding half an ounce in weight, should be two pence ; and that the postage on all letters on stamped paper, not exceeding half an ounce, and conveyed not more than fifteen miles, should be one penny. CANADA. Lord J. RUSSELL moved the Order of the Day for the House going into Committee on the Canada Indemnity Bill. On the question that the SPEAKER do leave the Chair, The NOBLE LORD said he felt it his duty now to address the House, not only with respect to that Bill, but also with respect to certain comments made on the general ordinances from which it had emanated. He could not but advert to the question ash ed him yesterday, by the Hon. Member for West minster, of whether it was his intention to propose any amend ments to the present Bill, or whether he should propose it as it stood for the adoption of the House. At the time when the Hon. Gentleman had asked him he was not aware whether there might not have been some additional words in troduced in the Bill in the House of Lords, from the time it had been printed by order of that House. Having since seen the Bill, he could now state to the Hon. Gentleman that it was his intention to propose to the House, and he did it very reluctantly, that they should assent to the Bill without any amendments.—( Hear, hear.) He repeated that he made that proposition with reluctance, because he felt that if they had been at any other period of the Session—if the House had not been utterly exhausted by the labours of that protracted Ses sion, and that the attendance had not been so much reduced in number, that it was impossible to expect such an expres • sion of the opinion of that House as would carry due weight with regard to a large measure of such importance, he certainly should have thought after the comments that had been made, and the doubts that had been expressed, that it would have been proper to have introduced into the Bill some other and additional clause, in order to make clear what was the intention of the Legislature with regard to the affairs of Canada. It had been thought in the other House of Parliament that it would be proper to propose a Bill of indemnity with regard to certain parts of an ordinance passed by the Earl of Durham and the special Council of Canada, indemnifying certain persons wile had acted under that ordinance, with respect to sending certain prisoners to Bermuda, or keeping them in restraint in that island. It bad likewise been the decision of the House of Lords that they would not proceed any further than to give that indemnity_ that clauses having been proposed is the original Bill, and subsequently in Committee, containing a declaration on time part of Parliament with respect to the meaning of the Act, it was thought better to pass by that subject altogeth er , and at the present period of the Session not to raise any new question that might be introduced by a declaration either one way or the other, with respect to certain parts of the Bill passed relative to Lower Canada. Such havin g been the decision of the House of Lords, and such being now their position ia that ilmse, he felt that it would be fruit less for him to minces our to cut sin a declaration or opi nion on the part of that ineuse, which would be es teemed or entitled to the weight of nay declaration or decision obtained in the ca; her part of the Session. He felt undoubtedly that in declining to propose any such clauses after what bad been said, the reap insibility of the Government et home, and ere Governor- General, who had to admi nister the affairs of Canada, whether it was the Earl of Durnam, or any one else, was exceedingly increas d. He felt, that locking at the advantages and disadvantages, that it was better to incur that increased responsibility, than to make fruitless attempts to obtain more clear and decisive dPclara.. lions ot Parliamentary opinion. What he proposed, therefore, o as, that the House of Lords having decided on their opinion, and, as he understood front his Learned Friend the At torrey -General, in conformity with his opinion, that so much of the ordinance of Lord Durham, as related to the keeping of persons restrained in Bermuda, could not be justified in law, it was necessary, if Parliament wished to avoid evil conse quences, that indemnity should be granted be Parliament with respect to that part of the ordinances; he thought that such a 13;11 having come from the House of Lords, and such being the opinion of the legal authorities generally, he would not say all of them, that the House could hardly hesitate, unless they were disposed to refuse indemnity, in agreeing to the passing of a Bill of this nature. There was another question to which he was obliged to call the atten tion of the House. He did it not only in consequence of the public comments, that were notorious, but likewise in con sequence ot the fen words teat fell from the Noble Lord the Member for Lancashire. He was most unnillieg to c tile attention of the House in any way to the general nature of the proceedings taken by Lord Durham since he had assumed the Government. He had asked the House more than once to fonnear :'rum expressing any opinion upon those proceedings, until the case, being more fully before th em , an d unt il the progress of Lord Durham's Administration in Canada icing more fully known, they could act with a better know ledge of all the circumstances, and might be enabled to come to a more sound and ma`ure decision.—( Cheers.) If he refused that opinion now, it was r o foe the purpose—far from it—of implying that in that House there had been any disposition to refuse that which he thought a reason able request; on the contrary, he had to express his grateful thanks to that House for the forbearance they had shown in the present case, a forbearance that he attributed not to the regard they entertained for Lord Durham or the Ministry, but to time higher motive, that they conceived it was more in accord with the general interests of the empire to do so. Some observations and a question was put by the Hon. and Learned Member for Ripon ( Sir E. Sagden) ; a dealat had occurred to his mind, and he, as in duty he was bound to do, stated that doubt, but with perfect calmness, and in a spirit of perfect fairness. But they could not disguise from themselves that lately there had been comments made, and sent fourth to the world with regard to the meaning of the Act passed by this House in the early part of the Session—comments which affected not only that part of the ordinance relating to Bermuda, which was out of the Governor-General's jurisdiction, but nhich affected his au thority, or any other person who might be governing in Canada in her Majesty's name—comments which would deprive the re presentative of her Majesty of a civil authority to meet, and put down sedition and rebellion, which would discourage those whose duty it was to prevent insurrection, which would go to call in doubt the whole of those questions which the Government, and the great majority of that House, . after full discussion and deliberation, had decided upon the passing of the Canada Bill. In saying that the Government in tende 1 to govern Canada according to that Act, he could not refrain from de claring what his sense of the Act was. Last night his Noble Friend (Lord Stanley) had said there might questions arise with regard to the whsle of the ordinances—wnh regard to the power which was exercised, and with the interference of the ordinances with the criminal law. He understood that some interpreted the Act to mean that certain words introduced into a proviso, prohibited any interference with, suspension, or alteration of, or repeal of any part of the criminal law of this country. That was an interpretation totally at variance with the whole scope and intention of the Act. There was not a sentence in the Bill, from the preamble to the last line, to justify such an interpretation. The meaning of that Act was (he would not discuss particular words, because he would rather leave it to persons o f l ega l authority), that, whereas it was impos sible to call together any L eg i s l at i ve A ssem bl y i n L ower Canada, and whreas it was impossible to provide for exigen cies which might arise, that, therefore, an authority should be created by Parliament competent to meet those difficulties, and to provide for those exigencies.—( (Flear.) It might have s been proposed, and no doubt ' ' it . was a matter of delibera tion whether it should b e proposed that by end ingsusp any part of the l aws which provided for the liberty of the subject the danger of conspiracy and revolt in Canada might be guarded against ; but at the same t time to create an authority which should be able, in Canada th e e p A ro c - t vide laws necessary for the occasion. Accordingly contained provisions with respect to certain monies that were to be issued, and guarded against any increase of the taxes, and any unfit appropriation of supplies —the whole of it evidently intending that, with those guards, the legislative authority was to be exercised by the Governor and Special Council constituted in Lower Canada. If, on the contrary, it was to be interpreted by the few words which said that no Act of the Parliament of Great Bri tain, or of the United Kingdom, was to be interfered with, why it would be impossible for that Legisla tive Assembly to be put a stop to, because the Act of 1791 constituted a Legislative Assembly to grant monies for the service of the Crown. It would have been impossible even to provide for any such necessary appropriation to the wants of the province if it was to be said those words were to be considered in such a manner that there should be no inter ference whateverby the Legislative authority in Canada, in any thing contained in any Actof Great Britain or the United King dom. But though such an interpretation was, as hen Lord J. Rus sell) thought, contrary to the whole purpose and meaning of the Act, it might be said that such was the intention of Parlia ment; and that, in assenting to the Act, it was clearly announced and thoroughly understood that exceptions were made, by which it was impossible to suspend any part of the laws provided fur the liberty of the subject or for criminal trials in Canada. But was this the 'case ? lie had referred to that, which was stated both by himself and others on the bringing THE SUN, LONDON, WEDNESDAY, AUGUST 15, 1838. in of the Bill respecting Canada. He had stated, on the first introduction of the Bill, that the Governor, with the Special Council, might, under that Bill, pass such Acts as occasion required for the Government of the Province. And he had subsequently stated that the Bill would enable the Gover nor in Council—of that Council five being sufficient to constitute a quorum—to pass any laws, during the suspension of the Legislature, to make provision for the temporary Go vernment of the Province, and other purposes—evidently meaning that the general legislative authority possessed by the Legislative Assembly in Lower Canada, was to be vested in the Governor and Special Council. Was any objection made to these 'proposals ? No ; except by those who opposed the Bill altogether as establishing a dictatorship. But various amendments were proposed, among others, by the Right Hon. Baronet the Member for Tamworth, which, after great dis cussion, were agreed to, and which did not touch the points to which he ( Lord John Russell) had been alluding. That part of the Bill was proposed by the Right Honour able Baronet to be omitted, which authorized the Governor alone to propose laws to the Special Council. On the suggestion, however, of the Right Hon. Member for Coventry ( Mr. Ellice) that proposition was abandoned. There were in the course of the debates certain statements made by the Noble Lord ( Stanley) and the Learned Gentle man (Sir William Follett), who said that the Governor in Council would have power as to permanent laws which were not necessary for the peculiar purposes of the Act. Now, the language that was used by the Noble Lord op posite, the Member for North Lancashire, with regard to the manner in which such laws would be propounded, was very remarkable. He said it was all very well to talk of the Council as a matter of courtesy, but that in reality everything rested with the Governor, who was dictator. The Nobl Lord, who was a supporter cf the Bill, took this view of it, that the Governor in Council wag dictator, end that all laws would emanate from him.---( Hear, hear, hear.) He believed his Noble Friend would not depart from that statement now ; but it was rather inconsistent with the decla rations now made, that it was supposed that the Special Council would be in fact an independent authority, over which the Governor-General could exercise but a very limited in fluence. Now, the Noble Lord mentioned some questions over which he thought that the dictator ought not to have authority—one was the rights of the Roman Catholics, an other the protection of the Protestant Church, and the third the tenure of lards. His Honourable and Learned Friend the Member for Exeter followed the course of the Noble Lord. He stated that he had a great objection to the Governor and Special Council having authority over these particular matters, and stated his reasons very clearly why, these being matters of permanent concern, it was necessary that the Provisional Legislature should have no power with respect to them. He then stated it was not a question cf local police, or affecting the affairs of the local Government. The Under-Secretary of State upon this statement then said, in substance, that if that was the object—if they only wanted words which should exclude the Governor in Council from affecting such sub. jects, he should have no objection to them. His Hon. and Learned Friend afterwards stated his only object was to exclude from the operation of the clause the laws which he had stated. He was certain the Honourable and Learned Member would never have made that statement if be had wished to prevent the Governor-General from passing Acts affecting the security of the province; if he had wished to say the whole course of the criminal law should be unaltered, and that the Governor in Council should have no such power, he would have stated such to be his ob ject—(Cheers)—and have asked the House to agree to or dissent from it ; but it could not be supposed that he meant any such thing. The attention of the House had been called to the principles held by the Hon. Member for Westminster, who disputed the Bill altogether. Their attention had like wise been called to the amendments proposed by the Right Hon. Baronet the Member for Tamworth, who argued on the general purposes of the Bill ; but, with respect to the amendments of the Hun. and Learned Gentleman, he only viewed it as an amendment to provide for what it was est necessary to provide for. It seemed to the Government that as far as principle went, the amendment was not materi .1, end they consented to the intreductien of the words. After this het( been den,e, they were still reproached with this being an act of despotism.—( Hear.) They admitted that reproach. They did not say that it was au Act of peculiar mildness which would only provide for mere matters of local police, in conformity with the laws of England. On the contrary, they admitted that it was an Act despotic ha its form, but neces sary for the safety of the Province.—( Heir, hear, hear.) He thought, therefore, that nothing had passed in that House which could induce any one to suppose that there was anything in the ordinance of Earl Durham which was contrary to the pow ors intended by the Act to be confided to him as Governor- Gensral. The fill went into the other House, and in a pre vious debate he hound his Noble Friend the Secret , Ty for the Colonies stating that although it was an arbitrary measure, it was absolutely necessary under existing circumstances. If it had been their inte n ti o n to deprive th e p eo pl e of L ewer Canada of the powers which ether colonies enjayed in cases where rebellion took place, would that have been the disadvantageous descrip tion which his Noble Friend would have given to the measure? For a Minister to say that a measure was arbitrary and in.- politic, when there was nothing of the kind it, would have been to invite reproach without being liable to it, and could hardly enter into the mind of any per son holding authority. But there were others who described the measure after it had passed through the House of Lords, and after it had received the amendment of the Hon. Member for Exeter, in protests now upon the Journals of the House of Lords. These were not mere fugitive \lords, \villa had escaped in the heat of debate, but words uttered by eminent .persons in tl:e House of Lords, as theirown deliberate opinion. The descrip tion of the Bill in one of these was :—" The Bill interposes a long interval of cleseotism before aly settlement can be ob tained"—and the ninth reason was " Because the Bill has postponed the calling of a new Parliament to a period neces sarily more unfavourable," end it terms it " coercive des potism." That protest was signed with the names of " Ellenborcueli and Brougham." Another protest alleged, " that it deprived the Canadians not only of the rights given them by the British Legislature; but of the Con stitution they had previously enjes ed." That was signed by " Fitzwilliam and Brougham." Such 11'13 the character of the Act as it had pressed through Parlia ment ; such was its general purport and nature ; such were the declared intentions of its purposes, and such was the cha racter given of it by its opponents after due delibe-ation. When the Bill went out to Canaria, he was asked whether he intended that the powers under it should be exercised by Sir J. Colborne, or whether it was to lay dormant until the arrival of Lord Durham. He anseered that as it might be necessary to provide fur the safety of the province, the powers under it were to be entrusted to Sir John Colborne, a clear proof that he did not think them of a merely ordinary n ,cure. The sense in which the Bill was utdentood, might also' be gathered from the conduct of Sir J. Colborne under the Bill. On the 7th May Sir John Colborne sent home despatches making mention of several ordinances passed by Inns in Council, and amongst them was one making protision for giving power t o the Governor to grant pardons to those 'engaged in the late insur rection, &c. These were laid upon the table of the House with in a month after; therefore the House could not say they were unaware of the ordinances of Sir J. Colborne, and it could hardly be said that they proceeded according to the criminal law of this country—it could hardly be said that they did not affect and alter any Act of Parliament.—(Cheers.) If the absurd and extravagant meaning attempted to be put upon the Act were the true one, these ordinances should have been called in question—they ought to have been told they had misun derstood the Act, and that acting upon their instruction, Sir J. Colborne had exceeded his authority.—(Cheers.) He was not arguing the question whether or not these ordi nances of Sir John Colborne justified, or did not justify the the ordinance now in question of the Earl of Durham. The question he was putting to the Hou se was, whether was conceivable that Sir John Colborne having issued his authority, that the papers having been presented to Parlia ment, it would have been any one's suspicion that these or dinances were totally contrary to the Act of Parliament which had been passed, that Sir John Colborne was violating the law, and that he would either be liable to prose cution or require indemnity for passing such ordinances. Such, however, at least he would say was not the opinion of the Government. They conceived he was acting within the intention and spirit of the Act of Parliament, that he was proceeding in this extraordinary occasion in the manner in which he was justified, acting according to the best of hi s judgment, actin , ' ' with severity perhaps against persons sus pected of hi g h treason, who had fled the Province, but at the same time acting with great mercy to those who con fessed themselves guilty. This, at least, was apparent, that it was hardly possible there should have been an Act of Par liament brought in for such a purpose, that there should have been words introduced to which no one paid much attention ; that a Governor should have acted in conformity with the ori ginal intent and purport of the Act,and yet that there should be a vice in that Act which rendered null and illegal the whole of these proceedings, and that that vice should never have been discovered till the Earl of Durham issued an ordinance. He (Lord J. Russell) must believe that it was not because the Earl of Durham had acted illegally, but because Sir J. Colborne was a person not obnoxious to political animosity— whereas Earl Durham was—that a vote, which had been harmless to Sir J. Colborne was directed against Earl Durham.—( Hear.) When Earl Durham went out to Canada, difficulties had increased, and he had issued a certain ordinance ; as to that portion of it which regarded Bermuda, he (Lord John Russell) considered it could not be justified, by law; but if what Sir J. Col borne had done was justified by the Act, that which was done by Earl Durham was equally within the mean ing of the Act.—( Hear, hear.) He (Lord John Russell) therefore declared himself ready to maintain, at whatever risk, that these powers were intended to be given by Parliament, that theyyt ee were ot j a u wn s oa t u i d fi lid e a d ns b m y e t e he necessity of the case, though arbitra r y and desp ot i c t h ey might be called.—( Hear.) And he said a ich id,Gth beoi feared, h a d as_ s h e a r t n h c mighttco k np asoiwra that,ey and at rebellion, peril, ayet rerlilved too much encouragement— (Loud cheers.)lfaprcolceuarrelisde,g hleatiwveouldnoutmeeting of Parliament could b e declarationboef w s h a a ti t sfi p e o d wer w s i ‘ t v h o o r u e t iot receiving o be conferred by Parliament.—( Hear, hear. ) But as that was not the case, it was neeessoarythattbe Government should un dertakeresponsibility the risk u nd o f acting ou undoubtedly n tedly its own was great. H e h a d no doubt that interpretatio n o f t h e A ct. the Earl of Durham felt it to be at once great and painful ; but he (Lord J. Russell) hoped that, supported as Earl Durham would be by the general opinion of the province of Canada, and by the general opinion of Parliament, h e would consider himself bound to continue to his country his best services, notwithstanding; the obloquy and the at tacks by which his course might bo marked.—(Cheers.) The Noble Earl's treatment had certainly been different from that which he had a right to expect.—( Hear, hear.) The Noble Earl had been deeply sensible of the perilous nature of the undertaking on which he was to embark, and in the presence of his political opponents had solicited their generous forbearance.—(Hear.) And it would have been but manly and fair to intimate to the Noble Earl the harsh manner in which his conduct was to be treated.— ( Hear, hear.) At the time he framed the ordinance in question, doubtless the Noble Earl had considered that they would be viewed with a just appreciation of the difficulties of his situation.—( Hear, hear.) He would not now discuss that policy, because he was not fully aware of all the circumstances by which Lord Durham had been influenced in issuing the ordinance in question. He was aware that the question was a most difficult one, both with regard to those confined for treason, and those who had fled from the province. With regard to the former, it had been a questiom, from the time of Lord Gosford and Sir John Colborne, much considered in Canada and in that country. It would have been possible to have acted with great severity, and yet to have kept within the letter of the law.— ( Hear.) It would have been possible to have defied the most casuistic to find a blot in the conduct of the Governor-Gene ral, and:yet to have acted with great severity. The law with respect to juries lied undergone a change within the last few years, and it would have been possible under it to have sum moned a jury of those who had been engaged in hostilit e against the insurgents, and influenced by revenge towards them. It would have been possible to have summoned such a jury, and, no doubt, a clear arse of rebellion—these men having been taken with arms in their hands—could have been made out, and they could have been convicted and found guilty, and if the persons who had to pronounce sentence ware of a san guinary disposition, their lives would have inevitably been forfeited.—( Hear, hear, hear.) If persons had by such a course of proceeding lost their lives, he (Lord J. ;Russell) would have defied any lawyer to say that they were not borne out by the letter of the law, but such a case he ( Lord John Russell) would have felt less able than he now did, in spite of illegality, in spite of informality, in spite of violation of principle if they would, to stand forward to vin dicate the Noble Earl in the course he had taken, which, while it was regarded by the British inhabitants as one of mis taken and over-generous lenity, was one which he thought cal culated to conciliate and promote the peace of that colony. With these impressions upon his mind, he asked the House at once to pass this Bill of Indemnity, limited as it was, but telling them at the same time that when the time came he should be prepared, not indeed to say that the terms and words of the ordinances passed by the Earl of Durham were altogether to be justified—riot that he thought it a light mat ter, as the Honourable Member for Westminster sup ' posed, that persons who had not been arraigned or summoned to answer for their offences, should be punished if they should be found within the province-- but he should be prepared to say, that looking at the conduct of the Earl of Durham as a whole—that believing him to be animated by the deepest zeal for the welfare of this country —that believing him likewise to have wished to avoid any thing which could be construed into unnecessary severity— that he should be ready to take part with him, that he should be ready to bear his share of the responsibility which was to be incurred in these difficult circumstances.—(Cheers.) And be did say, that if that province was preserved to this country—that if that insurrection being suppressed, the punish ment of death could be altogether avoided in practice—and that if there should be restored to these provinces the enjoy ment of a free Constitution, he should then say that no sophistry, that no accumulation of circumstances, and that no bitterness of sarcasm, accompanied by professions of friend ship—(Great cheering from the Ministerial benches)-- and thereby attempting to disguise, but not in fact disguising, the petty and personal feelings which were at the bottom of all these attacks—the Noble Earl would have deserved well of his country, well of his Sovereign, and well of all posterity. Lord STANLEY said that he never addressed himself with more unwillingness to the consideration of any po litical question, not only on account of the difficulty of contending against the apathy and indifference which must prevail at ties late period of the Session, but also because he could not help feeling, that its agitation and discussion must almost inevitably lead to consequences prejudicial to the main tenance of order in the Province.—(Ministerial cheers.) The Noble Lord who had just sat down, in the commencement of his speech, gave credit to the House for the forbearance which throughout this long protracted Session had been exercised towards her Majesty's Ministers and the Earl of Durham; but towards the conclusion of the Noble Lord's speech he seemed to intimate that the Earl of Durham had a right to have ex pected more forbearance than he had met with—a greater latitude.--( Lord John Russell here made a remark across the table which was not heard in the gallery.)—lt was diffi ' cult to mistake the personal allusion. But when the House of Lords had s motioned by their proceedings declarations, the dis cussion of which sees now forced upon this House, it was but just that even if the Noble Lord found fault with any individual whom he might think had put himself unnecessarily forward in this matter, it should be clearly and distinctly understood that against the great body of the Noble Lord's political op , pencil's he bsought no charge of want of forbearance.—( Hear.) nt the same time he would say, that from whatever motives or upon whatever grounds an individual might act, lie (Lord Stanley did not tidnk he was liable to the censure of the Noble Lord (Lord J. Russell), because that when he saw these despotic ordinances—when he saw a gross violation of an Act of Parliament end the principles of law—when ho saw a despotic Act of Parliament, pus'ed far beyond what hadbcen intended by Parliament, or what could have been conceived by either House of the Legislature, he, in his place in lia,-liament, denounced such conduct. He ( Lord Stan ley) regretted that such a discussion had been forced upon them, but he would not on that account shrink from stating his belief of the despotic nature and gross illegality of the ordinances—an illegality which had been declared to be indefensible by all parties. The sending persons to Ber muda, a place out of his jurisdiction, certainly vitiated the whole of the ordinances of Lord Durham. He did not question the motives of the Noble Earl, he believed he was actuated by an anxious desire to do all that was consistent with humanity— ( Cheers)—to protect the interests of the Province, and to save the effusion of blood—( Loud cheers)—but he, for one, could not answer the call of the Noble Lord to concur in that which was so decidedly illegal. The ordinances applied to two classes—those who had confessed and thrown them. selves upon the mercy cf the Crown, and those who were not in the jurisdiction of the Governor-General. Upon both those classes--upon the one who confessed his guilt, and on the other who had not been admitted to his trial—Lord Durham passed alike this ordinance, adjudgieg the penalty of death. The Noble Lord, in the latter part of his speech, most unnecessarily as he thought, most unwisely as he was convinced, endeavoured to draw an invidious distinction be tween the cases and tf e conduct of Sir John Colborne and Lent Durham.--( Hear, and cries of " No, no.") The Noble Lord made a comparison between the conduct of Lord Durham and the conduct pursued by Sir John Col borne. The Noble Lord had stated that ordinances had been passed by Sir John Colborne, he being a person not so obnoxious to any political animosity—(Cheers)—and, if flaws there were, none were discovered in t , :e operation of Sir John Cilberne until the Caine course came to be pursued by the Earl of Dud] rm. He would not express an opinion on the legality or illegality of the ordinance of Sir John Colberne ; but this Ire would say, that between the ordinance of Sir John Cul. borne and that of Lord Durham, on constitutional grounds, there were broad, plain, palpable, and manifest distinctions.— (Cheers.) He would by and by venture to turn to the effect of that portion of the Act which restrained the Go vernor.. General from interfering with, altering, or suspending any .Act of the Imperial Parliament, or any Act passed by the Colonial Legislature.—(The Noble Lord was here inter rupted by a message from the Lords, demanding a conference on the subject of the amendments made to the Sheriffs' Court ( Scotland) Biil. The Chancellor of the Exchequer and others then left the House to manage the conference on the part of the Commons. The CHANCELLOR of the EXCHEQUER reported that the Managers for the Commons had met the Managers for the Lords on a conf ere nce with r e ga r d t o t h e Sh er iffs ' Courts (Scotland) Bill. IMPRISONMENT FOR DEBT BILL. A Message from the Lords desired another conference with the Commons on the subject of the Imprisonment for Debt Bill, which was agreed to. The CHANCELLOR of the EXCHEQUER appeared at the Bar, and reported that the Managers for the Commons had received the Bill with certain amendments. Lord STANLEY then resumed—From the commence ment to the end, the whole course of Sir John Colborne'l conduct in the arbitrary powers entrusted to him had not been very different from that of his successor.--( Hear, hear.) Ile certainly did much towards reconciling the people, by showing that he did not select his Council from those whose interests were not those of the province. The tight to trial by jury was made by this Legisla ture part of the Constitution of Canada, and he con tended that no person had a right to abrogate that privilege. If the Legislature had no right to abrogate the trial by jury, a fortiori, Lord Durham had no right to do so. No one would contend that the ordinance of Lord Durham had not, so far as iegarded those persons, set aside their right of trial by jury. Did the ordinance of Sir J. Colborne go that length? That Governor had passed an Act of Attainder which certainly could not be said to go to that extent. If the party, in such cases, did not come in and take his trial (not before a new and unconstitutional tribunal) before the ordinary tribunals of the country, judgment was suffered to go by default, and sentence was then pronounced against him. With respect to the eight persons sent to Bermuda the ordinance of Lord Durham bore some anology to that of Sir John Colborne; but with regard to the other c l ass , there was a wide and most important distinction. They were to be proclaimed traitors merely for coming back and demanding a trial.—( Hcar, hear.) He was surprised that the Noble Lord should stand up and attempt to defend so unconstitutional and unheard-of a proceeding. W hen the Noble Lord came down early in the s es _ sion, and called for the supp ort of the House, in order to support the authority of her Majesty in Canada, did he meet with a refusal? No, both sides joined to afford such support ; but the Noble Lord did not tell them that he further intended to institute a despotism That suppoit was obtained on a statement that it was merely to o p ide for the Government of the coun try , while the Legislature ry of the Province refused to act.—( Hear, h ear. ) Why had not the Government told Parliament that nei ther justice nor legislation could be carried On, and then have asked Parliament to substitute arbitrary Courts for the regular Courts of Justice. If the Govern ment had come down and stated that, he did not say what course they would have taken, but he would have given all the assistance he 'could to th!. Governm ent, for the p u rp ose o f h av i ng substantial justice ?drninist,..,red. Ile held in his hand a copy of the speech of the Right Under Secretary for the Colonies, delivered on Monday, the 22d of January, in which he complained that the Colonial Le. gislature would not vote the supplies for carrying on the Go. vernment, nor fulfil the functions for which it had been ap pointed under the Constitution, and that it was to remedy this the Bill was required. Good God, if the Right Hon. Gen tleman had intended to set aside the Constitution, to interfere with the courts of justice, to abrogate trial by jury, shy did ho not come forward arid tell this boldly and manfully ; and state that it was their intention to adopt such unconstitutional proceedings ? But they had placed their claim solely upon the ground of the Colonial Legislature not discharging its duty. The Bill had been grounded upon the expediency of providing for the necessities of a colony left virtually without legislation to carry on the routine of the Colonial Government, but not to interfere with the Constitution to such an extent as had taken place. They had not been told of such a course ; they had not even been informed that the courts of justice were not sufficient for the administration of the criminal law, and that it would, consequently, be necess ar y to abrogate the trial by jury i n some cases , and pass sentence on men without a trial. They had not been informed that the functions of the courts of justice were not administered. If it had been required to abolish trial by jury and set aside the constitutional privileges of the colonists, why had not the Government boldly and man fully told them so?—( Cheers.) But no complaint had at that period been made of the inefficiency of the courts of justice, or the impossibility of procuring convictions in Canada. If the Government had shown that they were insufficient, and that the absolute necessities of the colony really required strong measures, he could safely say that, for his own part, no one would be more ready than he would to part with such powers as would be calculated to secure the peace of the colony, and sufficiently support the authority of the Crown. But when they were told, instead of this, that powers which they granted were only required ad interim, and not with reference to the crimi nal proceedings against individuals, the case was far different. When that Bill was about to be brought in, they had not been told that they were required to send out a dictator with power to set aside the Constitution in Canada, and to do acts which even the Colonial Legislature was incompetent to do. The Noble Lord had said that when the Bill had been intro duced at the commencement of the Session there had been very little objection made at that side of the House. True, there had been few objections urged, but the Bill •was, nevertheless, watched with peculiar 'vigilance and attention ; and, although the Honourable and Learned Gentleman opposite (the Attorney-General) remarked that no great measure ever passed through the House with to little change, yet it was not because attention had not been devoted to it, but because it was felt that such a Bill t+ as re quired by the exigencies of the colony, at which time it was not anticipated that such proceedings as had since been resorted to in Canada--it was not anticipated that there would be such a cause to complain of. The Noble Lord com plained that he (Lord Stanley) had called Lord Durham a dictator. He had done so, and, in his opinion, even if Lord Durham had the advantage of the advice of the wisest and best men he could be looked upon in no other light, possessing such powers, and having the privilege of dismissing any member of the Council, if it pleased him to do so.--( Hear, hear.) His opinion is in this respect was unchanged. What other ink renee could be derived from such a power over any member of the Council ? But amongst all the Powers which had been conferred upon him, it was not intended to give him the privi lege of changing at will any Act of Parliament, or of setting aside the Constitution. The Noble Lord asked whether they had at the introduction of the Bill made any objection with respect to interference with Courts of justice ? He would answer that distinctly. They had not, for they did not think it safe, nor did they think it requisite to introduce any change with respect to them in a Bill which they were given to understand was only to be applied to furnish a remedy for temporary evils of a different character; they looked to the interests of the country in agreeing to that Bill— they considered them paramount, and they supported it upon that account. The Noble Lord had not given the slightest intimation that any change in the courts of justice would take place, or that any other than the ordinary tribunals would be employed for the trial of persons in Canada, and they could not have imagined' that this Special Council would have taken upon itself to interfere in so unconstitutional a manner. Was the Noble Lord prepared now to say that there existed in Canada a necessity for such interference with the ordinary tribunals of the country ? Lord Durham himself had not said so much. He had not expressed any apprehen sion that it would be impossible or even difficult to obtain con cictions before the regular tribunals of the country, and that all those persons who had been charged with offences could not have been brought to conviction by the ordinary course of law. Lord Durham bad stated facts which bore a construc tion of a contrary tendency. In his first despatch he said that he had great satisfaction in being able to state that a spe cial commission which had been sent down to Montreal bad been perfectly successful ; and yet this had been followed by a complete setting aside of those tribunals, which had not been complained of. Why were the ordinary tribunals set aside when it was not pretended that they were insufficient? Even the persons who were most affected by the charges tacitly admitted that it would be quite possible to obtain convictions, which was evident from the course they had adopted, namely, throwing themselves upon the mercy of the Crown, which afforded a natural inference that they anticipated a conviction at the hands of the juries. It was evident, by the fact of their having pleaded guilty, that they did not expect the jurors would display any unwillingness to convict them. He believed there was an inaccuracy in the expressi on o f t h e d es p atc h as to pleading guilty ; but they thre.v themselves upon the mercy of the Crown, and that was of just as much weight so far as it af fected the wiliingness of juries to convict. In fact, Lord Durham had been greatly in error when he stated that the ringleaders had pleaded guilty, when, in point of fact, not one of them had done so. The Noble Lord had said that the proceedings against those men had been adopted upon prin ciples of humanity and benevolence, and so far from attri buting blame to Lord Durham for abrogating trial by jury he had defended his conduct. That certainly was a stra ,ge avowal from a Liberal Minister of the Crown.—( Cheers.) It was going far indeed to defend such acts of despotism— ( Ch . eers)—to advocate such a d e p ar t ure f rom th e pr i nc i p l es of justice—to tread the constitution a l r i g ht s o f t h e colo nists under foot—to supersede the conrts of justice by a new, an unconstitutional, and an arbitrary tribunal. The Noble Lord had said, that whether or not Lord Durham had acted illegally, he had acted from motives of humanity. lie ( Lord Stanley) believed that Lord Durham, although lie had acted illegally, had acted from a mistaken sense of duty, and he also believed that, apart from its illegality, the course he had t a k en was we ll caculated to secure the peace of the colony, and to prevent an y f ur th er e ff us i on o f bl oo d ; b ut t h at was no justification of an unconstitutional proceeding. The Bill which was now before th em wou ld go a great way t owar d s prevent ing many consequences of that ordinance ; but the evils which such an arbitrary and despotic course had already produced were irremediable. They were bound to do as much as pos sible to prevent the colony from suffering the injurious results of that ordinance; and he would ask the Noble Lord how be intended to act towards those men who had been sent to Ber muda, as well as those who had not as yet been taken ? Were they to be allowed after this Act of Indemnity—were they to be allowed to return to that country, where already they had effected so much mischief? Would the Noble Lord not take some precaution ? It was a serious and important question. Were they to allow all those persons to return to Canada im mediately upon the passing of this Bill ? It was a question upon which he would not give an opinion ; he would leave it to those better qualified . than himself; but he would ask, was not some measure of prevention to be taken ? Were those men to escape without further notice from the sentence of death, and allowed to return immediately upon the passing of this Bill to that country, which had been the scene of their un natural conspiracy, where they had occasioned so much misery, so much guilt, and blood, and wretchedness—where in their reckless attempt to aggrandize themselves they had plunged themselves in affliction and suffering ? But beyond this diffi culty there ought to be no doubt left remaining as to whether cr not the Governor of Canada and the Special Council had a power to suspend the Habeas Corpus Act with impunity at their discretion. This ought to be made a matter of certainty, and if the Noble Lord took measures to secure this, he (Lord Stanley) did not imagine that he should meet with any oppo sition. He did not know why the Noble Lord anticipated any objection to introducing any amendment that would have the effect of removing all doubt in future as to the suspension of the Habeas Corpus Act in Canada; but he was of opinion that if the Noble Lord stated his intention of doing so, he should experience no difficulty, either in this or the other House of Parliament. For his own part, he felt that he should incur a great responsibility if he had not expressed his views upon this subject, and what line of duty he conceived it imperative upon the Government to adopt, in order to secure the administra tion of justice—to restore tranquillity, and support effectively and permanently the authority of the Crown in Canada._. (Loud cheers.) Lord J. RUSSELL did not mean to draw any invidious corn parision between Sir John Colborne and Lord Durham ; he meant to show that the same principle was involved is the or dinances of both. With respect to another point alluded to in the Noble Lord's speech, he could assure hire that a Noble Friend of his had intended to introduce a provision to nearly a similar effect with that mentioned by the Noble Lord, and it was withdrawn in obedience to the general wish of the House of L or d s . When his Noble Friend did not succeed in carry ing that provision into effect, he (Lord John Russell) did not expect much success in carrying it through. Mr. LEADER said that the speech of the Noble Lord at that side of the House was directed to the Noble Lord ( Stan ley) at the other side; but that part of it had been so fully answered by the Noble Lord to whom it was directed, that he did not feel called upon to allude to it. When Lord Durham was about to go to Canada he (Mr. Leader) did not wish to throw any obstacle in the way of granting those powers, and after his arrival he was slow to find fault, for he felt that it was a difficult thing to throw back a revolution. There was, however, a limit to patience, and when they saw him acting in so illegal and unconstitutional a manner he felt it his duty to de clare his opinion of the Noble Lord's conduct. He would not advert to the part of the Noble Lord (Lord J. Russell's) speech, which referred to a Noble Lord in the other House of Parliament. That Noble Lord was able to defend himself, and it was probable he would do so in a manner which would make the Noble Lord who commenced that attack, regret he had ever made it. With respect to the Bill of Indemnity, he had a doubt whether it ought to be applied to Lord Durham, for if it were admitted as a defence that an illegal act had been done with a good intention, or a view to the efficient discharge of duty, this would apply equally to all Magistrates, and would amount to a defence in case of false imprisonment. A vote of censure might be in the present case more applicable than a Bill of Indemnity. It was not to be supposed that this was the only illegal act of the Executive Government of Ca nada ; they had done many ether acts quite as illegal and un cunAitutional. An article had some time since been published in the London and Westminster Review, and because a pub lisher in Canada had copied it, his printing presses were seized upon, and himself thrown into prison. If there had been anything illegal in the article, why had the pub lishers not been punished in England ; or why was that made a crime in the colonies which was not a crime in the mother country ? The Hon. Member then recited several cases where very severe measures had been taken by the Government against obnoxious persons. At the period when the Special Council was established there were 300 or 400 persons in prison, and the fate of all those was decided in one day, for the ordinance came out the next day. The ordinances themselves might be divided into two parts, of which each might be con sidered differently by different people. The first pert was al lowed on all hands to be illgeal. On referring to Lord air ham's despatch it would be seen that the words he used were that "he had transported these persons, but not to a convict colony." Now, it was very strange that when transportation was condemned in this country, that Noble Lord should intro duce it into that colony ; and it was also strange still for him to state that the Bermudas were not a convict colony ; men worked in chains there, and in point of punishment they were second only to the most penal of all our settlements—Norfolk Island. But what was the excuse alleged for transporting these persons thither? The House had it on the authority of the Morning Chronicle that they had pleaded guilty of high trea son. He ( Mr. Leader) denied that they had done so. Such was the niggardliness of the Government in granting papers connected with this affair, that he ( Mr. Leader) was obliged to have recourse to the columns of the Times for the infor mation which they should have supplied to the House. He should, however, first take Mr. Charles Buller's letter. That precious document went on to say, " I enclose you our last great Act ;" and the paragraph corcludes, " We have put no one to death." The next proceeds, " They have all pleaded guilty." That he ( Mr. Leader) denied. They might have submitted to the Crown and thrown themselves upon its mercy, but that was not pleading guilty. To constitute a plea, there should be a regular arraignment of the parties ; but such a thing was not even alluded to in the docu ment, and did not take place in fact. Ile (Mr. Leader) had high legal authority for stating, that if these ordi nances were to be considered the law of the colony, the Noble Lord the Member for North Lancashire, or even the Noble Lord the Secretary for the Home Department, might be banished the country if they went to Canada at anv time this current year. The letter went on farther—" We did not interfere with the ordinary tribunals of the colony, nor had we occasion to tamper with Juries." What sort of language was that to hold for a high functionary in a disaffected colony ? To " tamper with Juries !" Was that a fitting phrase for such an individual to employ ? And yet it was plain that they did not tamper with . them, simply because they knew that they would be unsuccessful in their attempts. The letter then added something about " those ignorant Canadians." How conciliatory towards a disaffected people from a high member of their local Government !—from a man who, aware that he could not legally condemn victims, transported them illegally instead. He (Mr. Leader) held in his hand a copy of their applicationto Lord Durham. It was in French, and he hoped the House would trust to his interpretation of a few of the strongest passages which bore upon the statement that the individual parties thereto had pleaded guilty of high treason. Wolfred Nelson and the others were those who signed it, and they said, " We rebelled, but not against the person or Government of her Majesty, but against the bad colonial administration. We await the issue in patience—on us let the punishment fall." ' The document then went on to compliment Lord Durham, and stated that " if he had arrived sooner among them it would he an event blessed for ever by the Canadian people." It added, that they had never had recourse to arms except in self-de fence ; and that the Government had not only not attempted to ; stop them in the course they had pursued, but had actually to lerated and encouraged their enterprise. That was actually the case, and he (Mr. Leader) might safely add, that the Governor • of Upper Canada might be said to have brought about the re bellion in that province for purpcses best known to himself. A : passage then followed in the document which justified Lord Gosford fiom the Utter attacks made on him by interested parties, and pointed out how his merciful intentions towards the deluded people were defeated by the interference of the ma ! gistracy. They asked no pardon for themselves, they only prayed for peace for the country and forgiveness for the people, t and they concluded with these words—" We pray to God m success to your Excellency's mission of peace, Dead hope that f two people worshipping the one God may be from henceforth • and for ever free, united, and happy." If it was a crime to urge such noble sentiments then he (Mr. Leader) admitted that those persons pleaded guilty, but that was the only docu t ment on which any such allegation as that made by the letter f of Mr. Charles Buller could be founded. As to the second • part of the ordinances he (Mr. Leader) thought it much worse than even the first. As a matter of law and a matter of common justice, it was in every way most unjustifiable. Sen tencing men to death for returning to their native land, with . out trial or condemnation, seemed to him a most atrocious proceeding.—( Hear, hear.) Nothing could be proved against Monsieur Papineau, for instance, more than could be proved any day in the week against Mr. O'Connell —( Laughter. ) Mons. Papineau was no more guilty of high treason than Mr. O'Connell_( Laughter)—and yet he was to be executed if he ever set foot again in the colony. But there was another case much worse still. It was that of M. Louis Perrot. M. Perrot was in New York purchasing type for time Vindicator news ' paper at the outbreak of the rebellion; and because he staid there, on receiving intelligence of the death of his brother, who was slain by the Queen's troops at St. Denis, he was con demned to death if he ever returned to Canada. Was that like law or kastiee. He (Mr. Leader) fur one prateate& against any Bill of Indemnity for such an act. But these were not the only irregular things he had to charge against Mr. Charles Buller. In the debate of last January the Noble Lord (J. Russell) had stated that it was not the intention of the Government to proscribe any party in Canada. To pro scribe a party meant to punish the leaders of it ; for a whole people could net be punished. Now, how did Mr. Buller act He transported some of the leaders of the party, and sentenced others to death. Was that proscribing them, or was it not? Among other things w hi c h he ( Mr. Leader) had to complain of as a g ainst Lord Durham's Government, was the appointment of Mr. Arthur Buller, a young barris ter of four years' standing, to the judgeship of the Court of Appeal, the highest tribunal in the colony. Would such a thing as that be tolerated for a moment in Eng gland ? It was monstrous, and would only be tolerated when everything illegal was tolerated in Canada. As to the conduct of the Government at home, there were two parties who had a right to complain of it in regard to this matter. The first was the public; and they had a might to complain of it as weak and contradictory. On Thursday night the First Mini ster of the Crown in another place protested against the Bill before the House, and asserted that to pass it would be to en danger the Colony in question ; on Friday, however, he yielded to the majority, retracted on every point, passed the Bill, and sacrified his Friend and Colleague, Lord Durham. He com pared the majority on Friday night to a truculent democracy for opposing hire:. Strange words these from a Noble Lord who had climbed into power by the aid of the people, and ap parently indicative of a wish to knock down the ladder; but yet, on Friday night, lie assented to all they said. The people had therefore a right to complain of the conduct of 'Ministers, aed above all men Lord Durham had so too. They first con tradicted themselves, and then sacrificed him to the party who opposed them. It seemed to him ( Mr. Leader) an act of poetical justice that they should now be compelled, at the end of a long and discreditable Session to them, to come down to the House of Commons to ask for a Bill of Indemnity. Mr. lIA WES should have though that any person who felt an interest in the welfare of the country would have tried to avoid every expression which had a tendency to embarrass the Government in this matter, or to throw difficulty in the way of a settlement of that vexatious question. He much re gretted his lion. Friend the Membrr for Westminster had taken the contrary course. He (Mr. Hawes) objected to any Bill of Indemnity, but he did so on very different grounds from the Hon. Member for Westminster. If an agent or minister of the Executive Government did wrong, then he should be made to ans.ver for his acts; if he did wrong under the sanction of the Government then they should be made: re sponsible. But in neither case should a Bill of Indemnity be brought in. The Government did not wish it; Lord Durham did not ask for it. It was forced on the Government, and they acceded to it of necessity. ( Hear, hear. ) Lord Durham confiscated no estates—he shed no blood—no complaints were made against him, and yet the whole indig nation of both Houses of Parliament was to be let loose on him for procuring peace at such a price. Under these cir cumstances he (Mr. Hawes) could not help thinking that the interference of Parliament with the Executive Govern ment was at once both unjust and unconstitutional. He now felt it necessary to say a word or two in favour of an absent friend, who, he believed, was also a friend of the Hon. Mem ber for Westminster. Mr. LEADER—I disown him. Mr. HAWES—CouId not so easily permit public feeling to interfere with private friendship as the Hon. Member; and therefore he felt called upon to say a word or two on behalf of his absent friend the Hon. Member for Liskeard. Was Mr. Charles Buller responsible for the publication of the let ters quoted by the Hon. Member for Westminster ? Were they his ? Had he in any way authorised their being made public? These were questions which the Hon. Member was bound to answer before he repudiated him. The Hon. Mem ber then concluded by protesting against any ex-parte state ments to the prejudice of absent parties. Sir W. FOLLETT said that the Bill was not likely to meet with any serious opposition, yet after what had been said in allusion to the part he had acted on a former occasion it was necessary for him to say a few words in his justification. The fact was, as•it appeared to him, that Lord Durham was in a si tuation of considerable difficulty, and that Parliament was not at present in a situation to attain correct information respecting the facts, and thereby to come to a just conclusion respecting the wisdom or policy of his proceedings.—( Hear, hear.) Nor did he think that the attention of Parliament ought to be called to the consideration of that branch of the subject till they had the fullest information thereon. —(Hear, hear, hear.) Although he felt the greatest confi dence in the humanity of the Noble Earl, yet he could not help feeling considerable surprise also at the manner in which those enactments of his were passed. There was no Special Council in existence till the 28th of June—( Hear, hear, hear)—on which day the Noble Earl appointed five of his friends to form it.—( Hear, hear, hear.) On that day they were sworn into office, and on that day they concurred with the Noble Earl in the ordinances which condemned eight persons to exile, fifteen more to death if they dared to return to ask for a trial—( Hear, bear, hear)—and many others equally uncon victed and innocent to punishments unheard. —( Hear. hear.) It was impossible that these five councillors could in that day have inquired into and learned all the particulars necessary to enable them to judge justly in so many cases—to have pro perly and conscientiously sifted the eviderce affecting these men, or the class in which they were pla.:!ed, by implication. He did not think, therefore, that the ordinances e, old ha ve been framed with that just and deliberate consideration of all the circumstances which their importance demanded. Hear.) However, the question now before the House was whether the Nabie Earl hid exercised the powers granted to him` —large, and ample, and uncalled-for as they se-ere—whether' ,the Noble E a rl wh o h a d exerc i se d t h em had not gone beyond them. —( H ear , h ear .) H e must own that ho did enter tain the str o n ges t d ou bt s o f th e l ega lity o f the ordinances— (ll- ar)—and the right which Lord Durham and his Couricil had to inflict the sentence of banishment in the first place, and in the next to denounce the penalty of death on those wile , should return. Recoliectin?; what had passed on this subject in the former case, he had no hesitation in saying that lie fete it was not the intention of Parliament to vest him with suclr arbitrary and irresponsible power.—( Hear, hear.) The ques tion was not now whether they gave him the power merely to alter the Constitutional law of Canada and Great Britain, but to set himself dictatorially above it, and put to death or banish the inhabitants of Canada at his pleasure ?—( Hear.) Had those who framed the Bill of powers with which Lord Durham had been furnished declared openly that they would not trust to the Judges and Juries of Lower Canada, or had they declared that they wanted additional powers themselves to puniAl the guilty ? If that had been said—although it was never said—he for one would have consented to it; but if they had said " Leave it to the Governor himself or to the Go vernor with the assent of his Special Council, to banish, im prison, or execute," he was warranted in saying every man who heard them would have revolted from such an atrocious proposition.-( osition ( Loud cheers.) Now, with respect to those eight individuals who had pleaded guilty, but not formally, nor sufficient to supersede their trial, it might have been evident against them in England, but certainly not sufficient to inswe their condemnation unheard. Next that Lord Durham had declared ia his ordinance that if the fifteen persona who were supposed to be guilty, and supposed to be within the juris diction of the Court, came within that jurisdiction they should be convicted, attainted of high treason, have their blood disho noured, and condemned to death, even if they came there with the innocent inteatiiin of taking their trial. He did not think that the Colonial Legislature had such a power of dispensing with the trial, with any of the examinations and cross-exami nations of witnesses before - the accused, ere they entered up sentence against them. It was contrary not only to the law of England but to that of every civilized nation that he ever heard or read of. Sir John Colborne's ordinance was widely different from that of Lord Durham, for it told the persons against whom it was directed that if they did not come in before a certain day they would be liable to certain penalties, whereas the ordinance of Lord Durham told them that if they came in they should be punished —(Cheers.) The one ordi nance, therefore, might be perfectly legal and the other ille gal. He thought the Government ought to provide some ee medy fur the effect that might be produced by annulling tbs ordinances, as was intended by the present Bill, as far as they applied to those men who were the known ringleaders of thr rebellion, and to bring back to obedience those who had been misled by the acts of others. He was sorry to have detained the House at such length ; but he felt it to be his duty to mske the observations he had upon this question.—(Cheers ) The ATTORNEY-GENERAL said, that it was sci h great satisfaction he heard his Hon. and Learned Friend rx" press his regret that this subject had been at all agitated. bt cause it was his (the Attorney- General's) opinion that destruc tion to the Colony would be the consequence. The agitation of the question could not be ascribed to her Mejesty's Go vTornent.—( A laugh.) It was well known that the pacific measures pursued by Lord Durlfam were received with the greatest applause by all parties in Canada, and if no objection to the ordinances that had been issued had been made on this side of the Atlantic everything would have gone on smoothl g The object of the ordinances was to prevent certain persot-d entering the territory of Lower Canada until the Provieee should be in a perfect state of peace and security; and thi; course would have met with complete success if the subject had not been agitated at home. He hoped the Noble ga r .' would still pursue his glorious course, and set at nought the detractions that were aimed at him by persons in this country- This Bill of Indemnity was totally unnecessary, for no action' would have ever been brought or thought of, were it not for' this officious and insidious proceeding. As, however, the sub' ject was agitated, he did not hesitate to give it as his opinion, that those parts of th e or di nances w hi c h went b eyond the pr o: vinces of Canada in their operation was an excess of the autha rity which the Act of Parliament gave to the Governor and Council. The persons to whom those ordinance; applied were in arms against th e Q ueen ' s aut h or i ty , and were therefore liable to looked upon as traitors; but there was no no authority to send th em t o B ermu d a .—(Hear., As to the tyranny that was described as belonging to these or dinances, it had been altogether overlooked that Lord Dun" ham could at any time give permission to any of those perm to return, and only said that they should be tried if they re turned without that permission. A proper distinction had tie` n been drawn between a legisl a ti ve p rocee di ng , as t hi s was , " a judicial proceeding, and therefore the mistake had been cote mitted of charging Lord Durham with a grass violation of tls . c! law. The Act which appointed the Governor and Council gave to them the same legislative power which the old Lessi!':, laturo of Canada possessed, provided the acts or ordinances did not violate or interfere with any B r iti s h A ct o f Parliamen of The Hon. and Learned Gentleman then quoted various Acts f Parliament to show the powers w hi c h th e old L eg i s lation °,_ Lower Canada possessed, and contended that the Ist of Victsac c gave precisely the same powers to th e G overnor an d Coun_lt- He believed that part of the ordi nance w hi c h e xtended b . e , yond the province to be wh o lly i no p erat i ve , b u t that talc extended to the province only h e b a d no h es i ta tion in pro nouncing to be legal. He was sorry the subject had been troduced fur public discussion, for he thought no benefit " t ; ° ea arise from it; but as it had been brought forward, he reie-c,,, '- to think that the conduct o f L or d D ur h am had been show n be calculated for the promotion of the peace of the colonY• The Noble Lord the Member for North Lancashire hard Bt%. mitted that the conduct of Lord Durham, apart from its slice gality, was well m ean t, an d calculated in an eminent degreeL i cP effect good. The Legislature o f U pper C ana d a h a d pass im various Acts affecting, in quite as great a degree. those prig' ciples which it was said Lord Durham's ordinances illegal set aside. Th e y h a d passed an Act to authorise the arrest an detention of persons suspected of trea son , misprison o ftreasc n ,' &c. Here was clea r ly a violation of th e Habeas Corpus P. for it enabled authorities to detain persons in prison without; trial. It h a d p asse d another Act for the better securing the trial of perso ns f ur treason. This Act was a direct inter f er en with the tri a l b y j ury. It also empowered the trial of P er, . sons from an o th er S tate b y Court-martial. Those vvereall c :a , great int er f erences w i th the law as the ordinances of f Durham. H e repeate d , that he looked upon the conduct , Lord Durh am as per f ect l y legal ; so far as the ordinance ' 1 ,5 plied to those wi t hi n t h e province, he was willing to share ! t. responsibility, H e was sorry the necessity for it should e%lus!j, and he hoped soon to see the time When the ordinary law w e ,.. c h againbe in fo rce i n a ll i ts vigour in Canada, a period this discussion did not tend to hasten. o f St E. SUG DEN wou ld not occupy much of thee t i M e o. r. i the House by the obs ervat i on w hi ch he was about t° °„ilesee The Hon. and L earne d G entleman had stated that be c ° n e t t dered the co n d uct o f L ord Durham perfectly legal, anal tf he was about to assent to the passing of a Bill of Indere o r for th it con d uct — a Bi ll which declared that conduct to tie posed to law.—(llear, hear.) If the conduct of the PN` f Lord were really legal and defensible, why did the H0n.,,, A 0 ' 0 ,. Learned G ent l eman support the Bill? How could the river and Learned Gentleman say be would uphold the law s l er consenting to pa ss suc h a Bill ? W here there was no risr and where there was no decision to follow it was very ea s Y,l o ct the Hon. end Learned Gentleman to pronounce the o°,o - t he of Lord D ur h am as legal, and within the province (see, Act which had been passed at the commen cemen t o f the t iers sion. He h a d read that ordinance, and th e procion a i ,d e n which ac compan i ed i t. Th e proclamation gave a free Rao of to th -s o concerned in the disturbances, with the e xcel: l ' o %s. a certain number, some of whom had been sent to Be. under pain of death in case they returned to the colony. 0 1 i:resent Bill da&ared the Act which banished those men' t ed declared th em un d er sentence of death in case they retsuirbeil to their native soil, illegal, and of course inoperative. to the inteliigence arrived at Bermuda those men were fete return egain ; and wh a t, th ere f ore , was to b e done with teo Wt re they to be put upon their trial again ? No ; 0 0 o rie vernment would d o th at . I t was a grave question. arl"„aer' which the N o bl e L or d was i mperat i vely called on to an.,"oce• These persons might re t urn an d set t h e E xecutive at dil'4-tonf He ( Sir E. Sugden) could conceive nothing more claog e mra than their return in spite of the Government. The Noble iit id should be prepared to look this point fairly in the fac e ' t state to the House an d t h e country what steps h e 01"),..0 de' take in the event of its occurrence . H e ( Si r E. S ug do% t° precated as much as man could do the personal turn gl /0 1,1 0 the debate, and the observations indulged in towards a th° Lord not present, in connect i on w i t h t h e su bj ect beto' s - os ee House. It would b e f ar b etter, i n his opinion, that d or Noble Lord, a member of the Government, should str it in another place sad rep l y to that Noble Lord than t"; he should be attacked i n t h at House in his absence, and wlthis i ' could not have an o p portun i ty of defending himself. Id dc' were done there w as no d ou b t that that Noble Lord w °ti to °- fend himself as e ff ectua ll y as he was ever accustomed aaes; upon all similar o ccas i ons. But as regarded the gre,a; Lion before the H ouse i t was his (Sir E. Sugden's) l ens opinion that, unless h er M ajesty's Ministers met the il-Dur tion of the Bill in debate, that the ordinances of Lord 611- barn were illegal by some other measure, the Q uce s n ' 'i n C a r vernment would not be able much longer to exist ."C nada. As to the present state of things in C ana re but ; was quite evident that if Lord Durham had b"", Council none of them could have happened. It vb-511 its mockery of a Council ; and it proved itself to be s e s o I" results. He (Sir Edward Sugden) have meant well in the matter; but he was of opinion tad 'far believed Lord pu r ' a t t ° act legally and constitutionally he should hare ac t each otherwise than he did. To adjudge fifteen persons without trial or conviction, if - e u ver e the yet foot in -a t Os" again, was a little too much ; and though lie had n° d ebt , i h tl i l s the Noble Lord intended the ordinance to that effect to at 4 t o h p e e r l a e t s i s v e evil,in regulationsit w as neoft, Sir in Johnint of effect, lb f been obser ve d t hi s could not have occurred,as th a Bill for a secon d and a third time would have aff°,rireadd an in SomegO d t he period to th e part i es who were to be affected by it, • h o e r validity of th e or di nance would have been observed. r Sir G. GREY was of o inior that the same nov i , e ,atin„ disallowed the ordinances could p also l disallow t pros h e proca There was an ordinance of Sir John Colborne wine" '„ sfoerlvaescgonudilittyiral pardon in cases of parties confe s t;.l 911 it and petitioning. The ordinance of 000 4 , ham would leave these parties in no worse condition.ror Wo es C. Grey) could not concur with the Hon. IVlembeisr.,i,h sesP e minster, in thinking the conduct of Lord Durham " to these ordinances was the result of cruel feeling. „ so ot Mr. LEADER did not use the phrase. f r Sir GEORGE GREY was glad to Iran that t r h , e , l . P sis (. 0 . • ale Member had not rote-tided to use• tuts phrase.. :, ar b s ol l lt G. Grey's) part, he never imagined that Lor i sl n to e ffe in ct. eard tended to act upon the ordinance or carry it• tendei r soll s would be madness to suppose that it was ever in a pe ihto effect the sentence of death passed upon the 1111°' ti le in„ f t , i i the